What is the explanation for this in Genises?

[OzmO]

Genesis 1:25-27
(Humans were created after the other animals.)

    And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

   

Genesis 2:18-19
(Humans were created before the other animals.)

    And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Just curious.

[loco]

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=128607.msg1836215#msg1836215

[OzmO]

It seems clear.

Genesis 1:

made beast then made man after his image.

Genesis 2:

made man then made beast

Whether there are details or not, those details are not relevant to the order of creation.

[loco]

It seems clear.

Genesis 1:

made beast then made man after his image.

Genesis 2:

made man then made beast

Whether there are details or not, those details are not relevant to the order of creation.

There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2.  Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day.  Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made.

The Scripture does not say that man and woman was made "...at the same time..." They were created in the same day, but not at the same time.

Genesis 1 provides a chronological order of creation. The tasks of each day are for our knowledge of the creation account. Genesis 2 is not a chronological account, nor is there anything in the text which would cause us to consider it to be.

Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the center of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting

They do not contradict, but rather compliment each other.

Ozmo,  I tell you what:  Read the Bible again and post some original questions from you.  Some of the questions you post are good, but they are not your questions.  They are the same old crap that has been debated for decades to no end.  You yourself said that you read the Bible a long time ago and you don't remember most of it.     

[OzmO]

Ozmo,  I tell you what:  Read the Bible again and post some original questions from you.  Some of the questions you post are good, but they are not your questions.  They are the same old crap that has been debated for decades to no end.  You yourself said that you read the Bible a long time ago and you don't remember most of it.     

But that doesn't change anything here.   Your answer avoids the issue of the order of creation and attempts to explain it by saying one has details and the other doesn't.

The important detail is the order they were created not the details of their creation.   This is plain english here.

In other words, this response and by your response on the other thread, it seems like you are avoiding the issue by saying it's an old question.  Whether it's old or not, it's still valid.

Can you answer it directly?

Simply giving answer doesn't work here unless you directly answer it. 

You could ask me what the sum of 40 -60 is and i could answer by saying  "meatball."   

BTW,  you and i know there's alot more that could be brought up in terms of contradictions.  But let's stay here for the time being until we can  explain the err in the order directly.

[loco]

Just curious.

Really?  Just curious or "just want to argue the Bible is not 100% the word of God"?  You can at least be honest.     

But that doesn't change anything here.   Your answer avoids the issue of the order of creation and attempts to explain it by saying one has details and the other doesn't.

The important detail is the order they were created not the details of their creation.   This is plain english here.

It is what it is, OzmO.  That is a common form of writing of the time, as found in other ancient writings such as in ancient Egypt and Babylon.  Yet, those writings are not questioned, but the Bible is always put on trial because it condemns people's immoral life style.   Do your homework, then come back and we'll discuss.

In other words, this response and by your response on the other thread, it seems like you are avoiding the issue by saying it's an old question.  Whether it's old or not, it's still valid.
Can you answer it directly?

Simply giving answer doesn't work here unless you directly answer it. 

You could ask me what the sum of 40 -60 is and i could answer by saying  "meatball."

Is that the best you can do, OzmO?  You will never admit to being wrong, so you respond by telling me that I am avoiding the question, when I have already answered it.   

BTW,  you and i know there's alot more that could be brought up in terms of contradictions.  But let's stay here for the time being until we can  explain the err in the order directly.

There is a lot more?  Really?  Then why did you have to copy doison and ask his question?  Why can you not come up with your own original question? Why could doison not come up with his own original question? 

Oh, and why ask doison's question here when you could have responded to my reply in the other thread?

You are repeating what one skeptic long ago saw while looking for contradictions in the Bible.  I didn't see it the way that he saw it when I read Genesis.  You didn't see it the way that he saw when you read Genesis.  You are just repeating what other sketics say.  Then you say that Christians are easily manipulated, that Christians can't think for themselves, that Christians simply believe and repeat what they are told.  I can say the same of skeptics.

The Bible is the inerrant Word of God.  It has no contradictions.  Read the Bible from Genesis to Revelations, writing down all contradictions as you go.  Then, come back and ask your own questions.  Stop Googling old stuff and then coming here claiming these questions as your own.  In the process, you'll see that these skeptics are wrong.  You can't brag about "the caliber of the questions you ask" when they are not even your questions.

BTW, I started that other thread to challenge people to read the Bible and stump me with original questions.  I'm not afraid of your questions.  As you can see, that thread died.  Why won't people accept my challenge?  Why do people follow other skeptics like sheep?     

[OzmO]

Really?  Just curious or "just want to argue the Bible is not 100% the word of God"?  You can at least be honest.     

Yes, loco, I'm curious as to what a person who believes the Bible is the 100% word of God.

So that you don't have to act like a smart ass every time i post something, just understand, when i post a contradiction in the Bible that's the purpose; to find an explanation or see what the explanation is from someone who fully believes every word in it is the "word of God".

I figured that much was obvious.

It is what it is, OzmO.  That is a common form of writing of the time, as found in other ancient writings such as in ancient Egypt and Babylon.  Yet, those writings are not questioned, but the Bible is always put on trial because it condemns people's immoral life style.   Do your homework, then come back and we'll discuss.

Interesting.  I would think the "Word of God" would at the very least have some comprehensive sense of order.  So you are saying the Bible is written without a sense of time line or order?  And that's supposed to justify this contradiction? 

As for why those writings aren't questioned.....  I don't believe those writings carry the tag:  "the 100% Word of God" on them.  The Bible does.  You've done that twice now.  You've complained that i don't question other writings and only focus on the Bible.  It's a fair sign of weakness for you to do that.  We are talking about the Bible.  Not anything else. 

If you are well aware of contradictions in the Bible but still believe it's the 100% word of God.  Then just say so.

Is that the best you can do, OzmO?  You will never admit to being wrong, so you respond by telling me that I am avoiding the question, when I have already answered it.     

You never answered it.  You side stepped it.

Genesis 1 provides a chronological order of creation. The tasks of each day are for our knowledge of the creation account. Genesis 2 is not a chronological account, nor is there anything in the text which would cause us to consider it to be.

Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the center of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting

But look at the verse in Gen 2:

    And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

First God says what he's thinking:  "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." 

Then he formed the Beasts from the ground:  "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air;"

Then he brought them to Adam to see what Adam wanted to call them:  "and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them"

So what are you saying here loco?

Are you saying that in Genesis 2 he doesn't give an order of events or......are you saying that the way they wrote things back then order is irrelevant?

What are you saying exactly?

Or is this going to be one of those times where you chastise me for not bringing up some other religions text?, or say i need to do homework or criticize my intentions?  Or are you saying it doesn't matter and that i should just believe that the bible is the 100% word of God?

There is a lot more?  Really?  Then why did you have to copy doison and ask his question?  Why can you not come up with your own original question? Why could doison not come up with his own original question?

Is that like a prerequisite now?  I have to come up with an original question?  What difference does it make where the question comes from?  Unless of course you have problems answering them and as a tactic to try and belittle the questions i ask you condemn me for not finding my own questions.

It wouldn't matter loco.   If i dedicated 5 hours a day to research the bible for the next year, i come up with the same questions.  So to save time, others have already done that.

So stop complaining about the questions i ask or where they come from.  If you can;t answer them just say so. Or just say you're gonna believe the Bible regardless of contradictions.

Oh, and why ask doison's question here when you could have responded to my reply in the other thread?

At the time that was going on i was dedicating most of my forum time to politics so i didn't get involved in it.   Plus, you're knowledge of the Bible requires time and effort far beyond the casual debate.

You are repeating what one skeptic long ago saw while looking for contradictions in the Bible.  I didn't see it the way that he saw it when I read Genesis.  You didn't see it the way that he saw when you read Genesis.  You are just repeating what other sketics say.  Then you say that Christians are easily manipulated, that Christians can't think for themselves, that Christians simply believe and repeat what they are told.  I can say the same of skeptics.

What difference does any of that make loco.  The contradiction exists regardless of whether i saw it the first time or not.  That's some of what scholars and researchers do...they find things that don't make sense in hopes of finding the truth.  Now you are trying to defect it to who gets manipulated?  Just to hopefully end this line of thought:  EVERYONE GETS MANIPULATED.  But Christians are usually easily manipulated but guilt.

The Bible is the inerrant Word of God.  It has no contradictions.  Read the Bible from Genesis to Revelations, writing down all contradictions as you go.  Then, come back and ask your own questions.  Stop Googling old stuff and then coming here claiming these questions as your own.  In the process, you'll see that these skeptics are wrong.  You can't brag about "the caliber of the questions you ask" when they are not even your questions.

At point have i ever claim these are my "own" questions?  And again so what?  If you can't handle the questions just say so.

Fact is, loco, this is your opportunity to prove skeptics wrong.  And much of what you are doing now is questioning my motives, my questions and my past comments. 

BTW, I started that other thread to challenge people to read the Bible and stump me with original questions.  I'm not afraid of your questions.  As you can see, that thread died.  Why won't people accept my challenge?  Why do people follow other skeptics like sheep?     Huh

So, do i need to go on that thread to get to answer questions?   Or can you just address them here?

So far we have 2 answers to my questions:  (correct me if I'm wrong)

1.  They wrote without time lines back then
2.  Genesis gives more details about the creation of man but does not give a order or creation.

[loco]

There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2.  Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day.  Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made.

The Scripture does not say that man and woman was made "...at the same time..." They were created in the same day, but not at the same time.

Genesis 1 provides a chronological order of creation. The tasks of each day are for our knowledge of the creation account. Genesis 2 is not a chronological account, nor is there anything in the text which would cause us to consider it to be.

Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the center of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting

They do not contradict, but rather compliment each other.

That's my answer and it's very simple.  I really don't see how you can't understand these simple words.  If you don't like it, you are entitled to your opinion.  No matter what I say, you won't accept any answers from anyone because your mind is already made up.

Read the Bible, OzmO.  Don't get manipulated by those skeptics.  Who said that they are scholars?  Not all of them are.  Skeptics question the Bible because it condemns their immoral life style.  There are no contradictions in the Bible.

[OzmO]

That's my answer and it's very simple.  I really don't see how you can't understand these simple words.  If you don't like it, you are entitled to your opinion.  No matter what I say, you won't accept any answers from anyone because your mind is already made up.

Read the Bible, OzmO.  Don't get manipulated by those skeptics.  Who said that they are scholars?  Not all of them are.  Skeptics question the Bible because it condemns their immoral life style.  There are no contradictions in the Bible.

Skeptics questions the Bible for many reasons.  For you to assume they do it solely becuase of an immoral lifestyle is an error.  For you to assume I'm getting manipulated by skeptics is another error.  I don't live my life through my eyes only.  I'm always willing to look at any point of view outside my own and if it raises a question or makes sense to me I'll give it thought and perhaps even change my mind.  Only a fool would look at things with blinders on.

If the Bible, in Genesis had the order right it would have never come into question.   But as i broke it down for you, you refuse to see it or acknowledge it and instead have for some part delved into deflecting from the question.

So what is your answer exactly now that we have come to this point?  Because you said 2 things.  Are they both your answer?   

Then maybe I'll post another of the many "non-contradictions" or contradictions depending on the way you look at it and you can show me where it isn't one.   Or not. 

[loco]

Skeptics questions the Bible for many reasons.  For you to assume they do it solely becuase of an immoral lifestyle is an error.  For you to assume I'm getting manipulated by skeptics is another error.  I don't live my life through my eyes only.  I'm always willing to look at any point of view outside my own and if it raises a question or makes sense to me I'll give it thought and perhaps even change my mind.  Only a fool would look at things with blinders on.

If the Bible, in Genesis had the order right it would have never come into question.   But as i broke it down for you, you refuse to see it or acknowledge it and instead have for some part delved into deflecting from the question.

So what is your answer exactly now that we have come to this point?  Because you said 2 things.  Are they both your answer?   

Then maybe I'll post another of the many "non-contradictions" or contradictions depending on the way you look at it and you can show me where it isn't one.   Or not. 

Good for you, OzmO!  And I mean it.  Hey, since you are googling Bible questions, why not also google the answers and then post them here and say why you don't like the answers.  That might be a good read.   

I recommend you read the Bible again.  If you have any questions, I'll be more than happy to answer.  And if I don't have the answer, I'll find somebody who does.

[Butterbean]

Genesis 1:25-27
(Humans were created after the other animals.)

    And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

   

Genesis 2:18-19
(Humans were created before the other animals.)

    And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Just curious.

In my NIV Genesis 2:19 = "Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air.  He brought them to the man to see what he would name them...."

OzmO's quote is from the KJV.

From what I have read the Hebrew verb for "formed" is "yatsar" which can be translated as "formed" or "had formed."  Apparently, either way is acceptable.


more:
(from Eric Lyons apologeticspress.com)

Hebrew scholar Victor Hamilton agreed with Leupold’s assessment of Genesis 2:19 as he also recognized that “it is possible to translate formed as ‘had formed’ ” (1990, p. 176). Keil and Delitzsch stated in the first volume of their highly regarded Old Testament commentary that “our modern style for expressing the same thought [which the Holy Spirit, via Moses, intended to communicate—EL] would be simply this: ‘God brought to Adam the beasts which He had formed’ ” (1996, emp. added). Adding even more credence to this interpretation is the fact that the New International Version (NIV ) renders the verb in verse 19, not as simple past tense, but as a pluperfect: “Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air” (emp. added). Although Genesis chapters one and two agree even when yatsar is translated simply “formed” (as we will notice in the remainder of this article), it is important to note that the four Hebrew scholars mentioned above and the translators of the NIV , all believe that it could (or should) be rendered “had formed.” And, as Leupold acknowledged, those who deny this possibility do so (at least partly) because of their insistence on making the two chapters disagree.

The main reason that skeptics do not see harmony in the events recorded in the first two chapters of the Bible is because they fail to realize that Genesis 1 and 2 serve different purposes. Chapter one (including 2:1-4) focuses on the order of the creation events; chapter two (actually 2:5-25) simply provides more detailed information about some of the events mentioned in chapter one. Chapter two never was meant to be a chronological regurgitation of chapter one, but instead serves its own unique purpose—i.e., to develop in detail the more important features of the creation account, especially the creation of man and his surroundings. As Kenneth Kitchen noted in his book, Ancient Orient and the Old Testament:

Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the center of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting. Failure to recognize the complimentary nature of the subject—distinction between a skeleton outline of all creation on the one hand, and the concentration in detail on man and his immediate environment on the other, borders on obscurantism (1966, p. 117).

[OzmO]

In my NIV Genesis 2:19 = "Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air.  He brought them to the man to see what he would name them...."

OzmO's quote is from the KJV.

From what I have read the Hebrew verb for "formed" is "yatsar" which can be translated as "formed" or "had formed."  Apparently, either way is acceptable.


more:
(from Eric Lyons apologeticspress.com)

Hebrew scholar Victor Hamilton agreed with Leupold’s assessment of Genesis 2:19 as he also recognized that “it is possible to translate formed as ‘had formed’ ” (1990, p. 176). Keil and Delitzsch stated in the first volume of their highly regarded Old Testament commentary that “our modern style for expressing the same thought [which the Holy Spirit, via Moses, intended to communicate—EL] would be simply this: ‘God brought to Adam the beasts which He had formed’ ” (1996, emp. added). Adding even more credence to this interpretation is the fact that the New International Version (NIV ) renders the verb in verse 19, not as simple past tense, but as a pluperfect: “Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air” (emp. added). Although Genesis chapters one and two agree even when yatsar is translated simply “formed” (as we will notice in the remainder of this article), it is important to note that the four Hebrew scholars mentioned above and the translators of the NIV , all believe that it could (or should) be rendered “had formed.” And, as Leupold acknowledged, those who deny this possibility do so (at least partly) because of their insistence on making the two chapters disagree.

The main reason that skeptics do not see harmony in the events recorded in the first two chapters of the Bible is because they fail to realize that Genesis 1 and 2 serve different purposes. Chapter one (including 2:1-4) focuses on the order of the creation events; chapter two (actually 2:5-25) simply provides more detailed information about some of the events mentioned in chapter one. Chapter two never was meant to be a chronological regurgitation of chapter one, but instead serves its own unique purpose—i.e., to develop in detail the more important features of the creation account, especially the creation of man and his surroundings. As Kenneth Kitchen noted in his book, Ancient Orient and the Old Testament:

Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the center of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting. Failure to recognize the complimentary nature of the subject—distinction between a skeleton outline of all creation on the one hand, and the concentration in detail on man and his immediate environment on the other, borders on obscurantism (1966, p. 117).

Thanks Stella,

You've have directly answered the question for me.  I appreciate it.  ( loco)

It makes some sense.

So i wonder now, if there was anything else lost in the translations of other texts. 

[loco]

Thanks STella!